From my grandmother--who would have been in her late 40s at the time of the Abdication--I didn't get the sense that the disappointment was as much with Edward VIII marrying an American as with him considering his own desires more important than his duty as King. I think that people felt betrayed by him; and although there wasn't any great love on people's part for Wallis, she wasn't the one who offended nearly as much as he was.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Catherine J

I don't think anyone cared that she was divorced but her being an American was ever so tender a thing for my royalist grandparents. Closest I ever saw them to being "treasonous" in respect to their stated opinion of the (then) Monarch was over those two.

Edward VIII had access to the Private Jewels of the Monarch for about a year. His mother Queen Mary kept a large amount of the larger pieces until her death, and QE II had been on the thrown for about a year. Queen Mary probable did more for the collection than anyone else. What happened during that year? Did Mrs. Simpson have access to some of them? KE8 was known for giving her large pieces of jewelry through out his life. The reason I wondered is that I just finish watching the 1978 BBC mini-series Edward & Mrs. Simpson. Are there some really old pieces that have not been seen in years and may have cruised to The Bahamas? He could never refuse her anything. I guess I I'm just wondering "What happened to the Queen's Jewels in the year that there was No Queen?

Queen Mary kept all of the royal collection after her husband's death and was careful to ensure the jewels remained out of her son's hands. However, Edward did have a large collection of unset gems and some older pieces that were re-set into new jewels for Wallis. These were gifts from the Indian princes during his tours of the Raj as Prince of Wales.

Most of the jewels he gave to Wallis were purchased from Cartier and Van Clef & Arpels.

Was there anything that Wallis was required to return to the crown upon her death?

I really don't think so.. at least I've not heard or read anything about effects being returned to the crown. As far as I know, everything David gave her was his own personal gift and none of it belonged to the crown.

__________________
“We live in a world where we have to hide to make love, while violence is practiced in broad daylight.”
~~~ John Lennon ~~~

Was there anything that Wallis was required to return to the crown upon her death?

The Duchess did return some items after The Duke died at Lord Mountbatten's request on behalf of The Queen. These included The Duke's military uniforms and orders, his Garter robes, the coronet used to crown him Prince of Wales, and some paintings. The rest of his property was inherited by The Duchess.

Do anyone know what ever happened to The Duke of Windsor's 1911 coronet that he was inevested Prince of Wales in?

From what I've been able to find, when Edward VIII abdicated and moved to France, he took his coronet with him. It was returned to the Crown upon his death in 1972. It is on display in the Jewel House of the Tower of London. This is the reason that a new coronet had to be made for Charles' investiture as The Prince of Wales.

From Wiki:

At George's own coronation in 1911, the crown was worn by his son, Edward, the next Prince of Wales. When as King Edward VIII he abdicated in 1936 and as the Duke of Windsor went into exile in France, he took the coronet with him. It remained abroad until his death in 1972. A new new Prince of Wales' coronet had to be manufactured for the investiture of Charles, Prince of Wales in 1969. After Edward's death the Coronet of George, Prince of Wales was returned to the United Kingdom, where it is now on display in the Jewel House at the Tower of London.

I was reading The Queen's 1996 Letters Patent regarding divorce wives of Princes of the UK. I noticed the Duke of Windsor was mentioned in the patent. It read:

"And Whereas His late Majesty King George VI by his Letters Patent dated the 27th day of May in the 1st year of his Reign did declare that despite his exclusion from the succession the Duke of Windsor should continue to hold and enjoy the style title or attribute of Royal Highness but that his wife and children if any and the children of his sons should not be so entitled"

I may have missed something... but why would the Duke of Windsor's sons children (his grandchildren) be mentioned in the Letters Patent regarding royal rank? His father King George V decreed that only the children of the sovereign, the children of the sons of the sovereign and the eldest living son of the eldest son of any Prince of Wales would be titled Prince/ss and Royal Highnesses. Naturally, Edward's hypothetical grandchildren would be great grandchildren of the sovereign in the male line not entitlting them to princely status.

I was reading The Queen's 1996 Letters Patent regarding divorce wives of Princes of the UK. I noticed the Duke of Windsor was mentioned in the patent. It read:

"And Whereas His late Majesty King George VI by his Letters Patent dated the 27th day of May in the 1st year of his Reign did declare that despite his exclusion from the succession the Duke of Windsor should continue to hold and enjoy the style title or attribute of Royal Highness but that his wife and children if any and the children of his sons should not be so entitled"

I may have missed something... but why would the Duke of Windsor's sons children (his grandchildren) be mentioned in the Letters Patent regarding royal rank? His father King George V decreed that only the children of the sovereign, the children of the sons of the sovereign and the eldest living son of the eldest son of any Prince of Wales would be titled Prince/ss and Royal Highnesses. Naturally, Edward's hypothetical grandchildren would be great grandchildren of the sovereign in the male line not entitlting them to princely status.

Can someone explain, please?

The Letters Patent you refer to were issued in May 1937 which was about a month before The Duke of Windsor (title that was created for him after he abdicated) married Wallis Simpson. It just was to clearly state that although as a son of a monarch, he was entitled to the title and style of a royal highness, it was his alone. At that time, it was very possible that if David and Wallis married, there could be children. Essentially what George VI was saying is that the title and style of royal highness rested with him alone.

It was a rankling point with David and Wallis. He did insist though that their staff address Wallis as "your highness".

__________________
“We live in a world where we have to hide to make love, while violence is practiced in broad daylight.”
~~~ John Lennon ~~~

The 1917 LPs say that the male line grandchildren of a king are HRH Prince/Princess and Edward VIII had been a king and so his male line grandchildren were entitled to be HRH Prince/Princesses.

The 1917 LPs didn't consider the children of a king who abdicated and so to ensure that there was no way that any male-line grandchildren of Edward's could claim the HRH Prince/Princess styling the 1936 LPs excluded them from that entitlement, along with Wallis's entitlement to HRH.

The 1917 LPs didn't consider the children of a king who abdicated and so to ensure that there was no way that any male-line grandchildren of Edward's could claim the HRH Prince/Princess styling the 1936 LPs excluded them from that entitlement, along with Wallis's entitlement to HRH.

Wasn't it LPs of 1937? From what I've read, George VI issued the LP in May which was very close to the wedding date of David and Wallis in June 1937.

Ahhhh someone taught me to be a stickler for the facts.

__________________
“We live in a world where we have to hide to make love, while violence is practiced in broad daylight.”
~~~ John Lennon ~~~

I may have missed something... but why would the Duke of Windsor's sons children (his grandchildren) be mentioned in the Letters Patent regarding royal rank? His father King George V decreed that only the children of the sovereign, the children of the sons of the sovereign and the eldest living son of the eldest son of any Prince of Wales would be titled Prince/ss and Royal Highnesses. Naturally, Edward's hypothetical grandchildren would be great grandchildren of the sovereign in the male line not entitlting them to princely status.

Can someone explain, please?

The 1937 Letters Patent were meant to ensure that none of Edward's descendants, and especially not his wife, could have the use of royal styles and titles.

As for his grandchildren, even though Edward VIII abdicated, he had still been a reigning Monarch, meaning his potential male-line grandchildren would have indeed been grandchildren of a Sovereign. Or, at the very least, they could attempt to claim the style of Royal Highness. George VI was probably advised to the possibility and ensured there was no loophole left.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Osipi

Wasn't it LPs of 1937? From what I've read, George VI issued the LP in May which was very close to the wedding date of David and Wallis in June 1937.
Ahhhh someone taught me to be a stickler for the facts.

And admirable trait.
The Letters Patent regarding the styles and titles of the spouse and descendants of the Duke of Windsor was indeed issues in May of 1937.